A proposal to reform Law 22 of 2006, which regulates public procurement, has been authorized for submission to the National Assembly. The step was formalized through Cabinet Resolution No. 110 of October 13, 2026, published on October 19 in Official Gazette No. 30637 F. For companies selling to the State, the distinction matters: a legislative initiative is authorized, but this act does not change their contractual obligations.

Article 1 authorizes the minister of Economy and Finance to propose the reform. Article 2 orders that an authenticated copy of the resolution be sent to the minister to proceed, and Article 3 provides that it takes effect upon promulgation. The decision relies on Article 165(1)(b) of the Constitution, concerning the submission of legislation by ministers with Cabinet Council authorization.

The Presidency announces changes concerning beneficial owners, disqualifications, evaluation and challenges. Those areas guide the attention of public procurement participants, although they do not yet make it possible to calculate the impact. A thematic announcement does not answer, for example, which documents would be required, how compliance would be demonstrated or which procedures would be subject to any transition. Those answers must come from the provisions themselves, not from an expansive interpretation of the published authorization.

For a supplier, it is useful to separate two decisions: preparing an analysis of a possible reform and changing how to participate in a particular tender. The first can begin with an inventory of its government procurement processes. The second requires identifying an applicable provision, its effective date and the corresponding conditions. The resolution examined does not contain those new operating rules.

The published document also sets no date for the Assembly to approve the initiative and does not attach the bill. It therefore provides no basis for asserting that an ongoing procedure must be suspended, that a contract needs to be renegotiated or that interested parties must meet additional requirements. Authorizing the minister and potentially amending the law are distinct acts whose effects should not be confused.

The next relevant step for companies and advisers will be to obtain the submitted text and compare it with their participation processes. The review conducted did not locate that text or evidence of submission, but that absence does not prove the step did not occur. Until it is verified, the development is the formal authorization of a reform, not a public procurement regime that has already been replaced.

Research assisted by Sentinel, with editorial verification of official sources. Discover Legislat.ai